Conservatives deal with facts and reach conclusions; liberals have conclusions and sell them as facts.

Fort Hood: Workplace violence or act of terror?

If you think the Fort Hood massacre was a terrorist act by a determined jihadist, rather than an “act of workplace violence that was coincidentally committed by a Muslim who spouted jihadist rhetoric,” consider signing National Review’s petition at Change.org:

Petitioning Chuck Hagel

The Ft. Hood massacre was an Act of Terror

Petition by National Review

The Fort Hood massacre was an act of war carried out by a violent jihadist who had infiltrated our Armed Forces while taking advice and encouragement from Anwar al-Awlaki, who was so clearly an al Qaeda commander that President Obama authorized his wartime killing by a drone strike. We are a nation at war based on a congressional authorization of military force enacted after al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 Americans in the atrocities of September 11, 2001. If the war is to be waged seriously, the government must recognize that the Fort Hood massacre – in which twice as many Americans were killed as were killed in the jihadist bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 – was an act of terrorism committed by the enemy. We must honor the sacrifice of those killed and wounded at Fort Hood by acknowledging its true context.

To: Chuck Hagel, Secretary of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense

The Administration has designated the Ft. Hood massacre as workplace violence, and not what it was: an Act of Terror. By not designating this event as such an act, it disrespects the lives of the 13 who lost their lives that day, and dozens more who were injured and those helped their fellow soldiers.

Furthermore, Nidal Hassan will not be tried as an enemy combatant, but instead will be court-martialed.

Finally, without an Act of Terror designation, those wounded in defense of our nation will not receive a Purple Heart.

This is outrageous and I call on you to change the official designation now before the trial for Nidal Hassan proceeds any further.

Sincerely,
[Your name]

As of this moment, 340 people have signed the petition. National Review is looking for 10,000.

Share this:

I vaguely recall there was some obscure legalistic reason why declaring this an act of “workplace violence” benefited the military somehow, and that allowing it to be declared an act of terrorism would have removed the benefit.

Does anyone remember what I’m talking about?

It has nothing to do with REALITY, just some strange, ridiculous legalism.

MacG

I hadn’t heard any reason but wondered if they declared it an act of terrorism would life insurance benefits be cancelled?

http://OgBlog.net Earl

Mike, MacG: I’ve only heard that benefits are diminished by the current designation, not by finding Hasan’s murders an act of terrorism….I’ve been looking around, here’s a sampling:

http://ivn.us/2013/05/17/fort-hood-victims-denied-benefits-4-years-later/According to the lawsuit, many of the victims have had to seek medical treatment outside of the military at their own expense and are struggling to coordinate proper care.A bill introduced by Rep. John Carter (R-Texas), called “The Fort Hood Families Benefits Protection Act,” would award victims the Purple Heart or the civilian equivalent from the Department of Defense and provide all the benefits that come with those honors. The purpose of the bill is to “ensure that the victims and victims’ families of the November 5, 2009, attack at Fort Hood, Texas, receive the same treatment and benefits as those Americans who have been killed or wounded in a combat zone overseas and their families.”This is important from a financial standpoint, as those who are killed or wounded as a result of combat are eligible for care and benefits that those who are not killed in combat are not.

First, the Obama administration classified the attack as an act of “workplace violence” worthy of a court martial, rather than terrorism, “to avoid responsibility for the government’s role in enabling Hasan’s attack and to protect the officials who closed their eyes to the threat,” the victims’ group states. This rating meant victims were not entitled to certain medical benefits and financial compensation. The massacre was later described as “the worst terrorist attack on US soil since September 11, 2001″ by the Senate committee on homeland security. Then, victims of the attack – many of whom can no longer work – were denied the Purple Heart, awarded to servicemen injured in action, along with other considerable financial benefits it bestows, while Hasan continued to receive $278,000 (£182,000) in total salary. The US military said that such a handout of the medals, traditionally awarded for service overseas, could prejudice Hasan’s trial.

The kind of detail I’d like isn’t to be found in any of these stories, but it seems clear that making this terror attack “workplace violence” denies the wounded and those left by the murdered some of the benefits that soldiers killed or wounded in combat situations get. And Hasan is being PAID — how come that money doesn’t go in an escrow account, so that when he’s convicted, the citizens of the United States get it back?

Oh…the reason it’s been called “workplace violence” and not “terrorism” is to cover the rear quarters of all the jackasses (and their superiors) who gave this guy positive performance reviews while privately worrying about his constant radical speech and writing, as well as his contacts with known jihadis. The military’s “diversity” was more important than protecting the grunts. The Telegraph story is the best on this issue — lots of details there that I hadn’t read before.

http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

Obama has been directly ordering those “grunts” to die in horrible ways in Afghanistan for a long time now..

What, did people just not notice such things?

Writing this blog is a labor of love. However, if you'd like to donate money for my efforts, please feel free to do so: